Leviticus 11
PATtip into it, till God commanded him; ho had much moro reason not to go into the tabernacle, which was sanctified to bo God s dWelling-placc for ever, till God called to him by a voice from his presence: nay, he durst not so |much as come near the door, where I suppose he now stood, without a particular direction from the Divino Majesty. Vcr. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them.’] The tabernacle being erected, it wrts lit, in thfe next place, to appoint the service that Should be performed in it: which consisted in such sacrifices as are here mentioned in the beginning of this book. There could not be a mote natural order, in setting down the laws delivered by MoscS, than this which is her6 observed. If any man of you bring.] It is the observation of Kim* chi, that in the very beginning of the laws about sacrifices, God doth not require them to offer any, but drily supposes they would; having been long accustomed to it, as all the world then was. To this he applies the words of Jeremiah, vii. 21. and takes it for an indication, that otherwise God would not have given so many laws concerning sacrifices, but only in compliance with the usage of the world; which could not then have been quite broken, without the hazard of a revolt from him. And therefore they arc directed to the right object, the eternal God; and limited to such things as were most agreeable to human nature. An offering nnto the Lord.] The Hebrew word korban, which we translate an offering, and the Greeks translate a gift, is larger than zebach, which we translate a sacrifice. ( For, as Abarbinel observes in his preface to this book, though every sacrifice was an offering, yet every offering was not a sacrifice. A sacrifice being an offering that was slain; but there were several offerings of inanimate things (as those mentioned in the beginning of the second chapter of this book), which therefore were not properly sacrifices; but were accepted of God as much as the offering of beasts, when they had nothing better to give. And therefore the same Abarbinel will have the name of korfyan to be given to these offerings, because thereby men approached to God. For it is derived from a word which signifies to draw near: from whence he thinks those words in Deuteronomy, iv. 7. “What nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them,” &c. Ye shall bring.] He speaks in the plural number, say $ome of the Hebrew doctors (who have accurately considered these things), to shew that two men might join together to offer one thing. Your offering of the cattle.] I do not know what ground Maimonidcs had to assert, in his More Ncvochim, (par. iii. cap. 46.) that the heathen in those days had brute beasts in great veneration, and would not kill them (for it is no argument there was such a superstition in Moses’s time, because there were people in the days of Maimonidcs, as there arc now, who, were possessed with such opinions). But he thinks God intended to destroy this false persuasion, by requiring the Jews to offer such beasts as are here mentioned; that what the heathen thought it a great sin to kill, might be offered to God, and thereby men’s sin be expiated. By this means, saith he, men’s evil opinions, which arc the diseases and ulcers of the mind, were cured; as bodily diseases are by their contraries. Yet in the thirty-second chapter of that book, he saith, God ordered sacrifices to be offered, that he might not wholly alter the customs of mankind, who built temples, and offered sacrij ficcs every where; taking care (it may be added) at the same time, that they should be offered only to himself, at one certain place, and after such a manner, as to preserve his people from all idolatrous rites: which if they had considered, who contemned this hook of Leviticus (as Procopius Gazseus tells us some did) because it treated too much of sacrifices, they would not havfc thought it unworthy the Creator of the world, especially if they had looked further to the wisdom hidden under these things; which were examples, shadows, and patterns of heavenly things, as tho apostle speaks, (Heb. viii. 4. ix. 13.) And so was the tabernacle itself, a figure (as We redd ver. 9.) " for the time present, of a greater and mdfc perfect tabernacle, not mado with hands’." Even of the herd and of the flock.] That is, bullocks, sheep, and goats. F6r under tlte w6rd tzoh (which wo translatc^oci^ both sheep and goats are comprehended. And so Moses expourids hhris^lf, ter. 10. These were the principal sacrifices, &nd most acceptable to God, as Abarbinel observes in the forenamed place. For though doves and turtles were accepted when men were not able to bring the other; yet in public sacrifices these birds were never allowed: but only the three sorts of four-footed beasts beforementioned. SVhich were therefore chosen (as he proceeds) because these were tho most excellent of all brute creatures, on several accounts; and because they were not hard to be found, but easily procured: and therefore no wild beasts were required to be offered, because God would not impose upon his people (as his words are) so great a burden, as to bring him that which could not be got without some difficulty. For which cause, also, young pigeons and turtles were only offered among birds. He gives other reasons for this, which seem to me very far-fetched, and therefore I shall not mention them. But this I may further add, that as they were the most ready at hand, and in common use among men at their tables (which he should have noted as the plainest reason of all), so they had been in most ancient use among religious people in their sacrifices. (Sec Gen. xv. 9.) And it is very likely they were’ restrained peculiarly to these, that they might not follow the customs of the gentiles; as they would have done, had they not been abridged in their liberty. Now though we find in Homer mention made of hecatombs (which were a sacrifice of a hundred oxen), and of perfect lambs and goats, whereby Achilles hoped Apollo might be appeased, and moved to cease the plague he hnd sent upon the Greeks; yet there was no more ancient sacrifice among the heathen, if we may bdieve themselves, than that of swine. Which made that learned Roman, Varro, derive the tfordvc (which is the Greek word for that creature) from $v$, i. e. from a sacrifice, because it was most anciently offered to their gods; there being no more delicious food at their own tables than swines* flesh. (Sec Pctrus Castcllanus dc Esu Carnium, lib. ii. cap. 1.) And afterward they also sacrificed not only harts to Diana, but horses to the sun^ wolves to Mars, nay, dogs to Hecate; whereby they destroy the very nature of sacrifices, or at least of sacrifical feasts; in which people had communion with the gods whom they worshipped, by partaking at their table. For who would endure to cat of such meat as horse-flesh, and the flesh of wolves, nay asses, which were offered to Priapus? Vcr. p. If his offering be a burnt-sacrifice.] Having prelVlOSES having mentioned, in his preceding discourse about sacrifices, several sorts of uncleanness, (v. 2, 3.) and in the foregoing chapter (x. 10.) commanded the priests to keep themselves sober, that they might at all times be able to distinguish between clean and unclean, takes an occasion from thence to give an account of that matter. For otherwise that which we read chap. xvi. would here have most naturally followed (as appears from the eleventh verse of it), being about the principal sacrifice, whereby all manner of unclcanness was to be expiated; which he now inserts in the midst of those things that belong to that head. For, first, he treats in this chapter of unclean meats; and in the twelfth to fifteenth, of unclean persons, garments, and habitations. And then (after he hath directed how to make the great atonement for the whole nation, and some other things) he Teturns in the latter end of chap. xvii. to speak of some forbidden food; and chap.xviii. of unclean marriages: and after a repetition of several laws, (chap, xix.) of some greater uncleanncsses; and chap. xxi. of priests that were unclean: and lastly, of sacrifices not fit to be offered, (chap.xxii.) birds. Callimachus mentions six, Aristotle ten, and Pliny sixteen sorts. (See Bochart in the same book, cap. 19.) f Vcr. 17. And thelittle owl’] Interpreters generally agree that chos signifies a kind of owl, following the LXX. who translate it vvxriKopaZ. Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious arguments, to prove that it signifies that bird which the Greeks call ovoKporaApc, a bittern. (See there, cap. 20.) m ^ And the cormorant.] Though the same learned person (loth not approve of this translation, yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word salach signifies some sea-bird, which sits upon,rocks, and strikes at fishes with great force, and draws them out of the waters. And so theTalmudists, in the treatise called Cholin, expound it; and the gloss upon it there says, it signifies the crow of the waters, that is, a cormorant.. And the -great owl.] There are various translations of the Hebrew word jansaph, which St. Jerome takes for a stork, and others for Vibustard: but Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee translation to be the most probable, which is the same with ours. any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.] They made themselves abominable if they did eat them: and they made themselves unclean if they did but touch them. R. Levi of Barcelona fancies, that in this verse Moses speaks particularly of things creeping in the waters; as in the foregoing, of things creeping on the earth.. And then, as all those worms which are in fruit, were not to be deemed unlawful; so all those little animals which move. in the waters might be drank, together with the water which was drawn out of wells, or pits, &c. and which were bred in water kept in vessels. _,
Leviticus 11:1
And the Lord spake unto Moses, and to Aaron, saying unto them. The consecration of Aaron benignow completely finished, God spake to him, as well as unto Moses; he being also highly concerned to teach the people -the difference that is here made between several soTts of meats, (x. 11.) which Moses assures them was enacted by Divine authority.'
Leviticus 11:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying. They were all to take special notice of what follows, because, by the diet here prescribed, they were discriminated from all other people in the world. These are the beasts that ye shall eat, among all the beasts that are on the earth.] God having bestowed upon mankind, after the flood, every living thing to be their food, (Gen. ix. 3.) it hath raised a question among learned men, why God should limit and restrain his own people from the benefit of this general grant. And some have thought this so unaccountable, that they have said it is in vain to inquire into the reason of the difference that is made here of meats: concerning which P. Cunaeus declares (as Plutarch doth of the laws of Solon and Lycurgus),thatno doubt they were.enacted with wise counsel; but the reason of the authors cannot b.e known, (lib. ii. Ilepubl. Heb. cap. 24.) - But other$ think the reason is plain enough; and the Jews are of opinion, that the creatures here called unclean, were forbidden to v be eaten, because they were unwholesome food. So Maimonides discourses at large in his More Nevoch. par. iii. cap.48..where he saith, there can be no doubt that every thing here prohibited yields a bad nourishment, except it be swine’s flesh and fat: and yet he endeavours to shew, that there is no reason to think otherwise of those two. R. Levi of Barcelona is of the same mind, but pretends not to be able to demonstrate it, as Maimonides doth. For the sum of a long and pious discourse, which he hath upon this subject (Praecept. Ixxix. where he treats of that flesh which was torn by wild beasts) amounts to this: “that the body being the seat of the soul, where it doth its business, God would have it fitted to the desires and employments of the soul. And therefore the law (saith he) removes from us all those things which may hinder the soul in its operations. For which.reason such and such meats are forbidden, as breed ill blood: among which, if there be some whose hurtfulness is neither visible to us, nor to physicians, do not wonder at it; for the faithful Physician who forbids them, is wiser than any of us.” This opinion I cannot think to be wholly groundless: for though there be some creatures here prohibited, which seem to us of as good nourishment as those which are allowed; yet, considering that climate wherein the Jews lived, and the temper of their blood, which was very hot, and apt to be extremely corrupted (as appears by the unusual leprosy to which they were obnoxious, more than other nations), it is reasonable to conclude, that God had some respect to this, in the ordering of their diet. (See J. “Wagcnscil Confut. Carminis It. Lipmanni, p. 556.) Yet \ cannot think this to have been the chief reason of this law, (though it be very agreeable to the peculiar care God had of this people, thathe should not only give them civil and sacred laws, but direct them in the smallest matters, as he did in their apparel, building, &c.)but the main drift and scope of it was, that the Israelites might be separated from all other nations in the world by a diet peculiar to themselves: which kept them from such a familiar conversation, as otherwise they might have had with the gentiles; and consequently from learning their idolatrous customs. And I do not see why I should not add, most of the creatures, which aTe reckoned unclean, were such as were in high esteem and sacred among the heathen. As a swine was to • Venus, the owl to Minerva, the hawk to Apollo, the eagle to Jupiter, and even the dog to Hecate, &c. Whence Origen justly falls into a high admiration of Moses’s wisdom; who so perfectly understood all animals, and what relation they had to demons, that he pronounced all those to be unclean, ra vofuZojjttva yap AlyvirTtotg kcu rote Xottroic twv dvSpdmwv fxavriKu, &c. which were esteemed by the Egyptians, and other nations, to.be the instruments of divination; and those to be clean, which were not so, (lib. i v. contra Celsum, p. 225.) And if in Moses’s time such creatures were not sacred to demons, it is a greater wonder that he should mark those out for impure, which proved to be so sacred in after-ages: as a great number of birds mentioned by Porphyry (lib. iii. Tnpl ^Attojqk), who saith the gods used them as Kiifwtctg, to declare their mind to men!: Microsoft ® [chap. XI. and several other creatures, mentioned by other authors, as peculiarly appropriated to other deities. Many havo discoursed largely of tho moral reasons of these precepts; particularly a very learned man now living, Joh. Wagcnscil, in his annotations on that title in tho Misna called Sota, (fol. 1171, &c.)
Leviticus 11:3
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted. There are some creatures which Porphyry (in the book forementioned, lib. iv.) calls fiwwxd, whose hoofs are solid, and not at all divided; such aS horses, asses, and mules: others that arc irokvcrxtSn, divided into several parts, like toes; as lions, wolves, and dogs: but’&’third sort that aro only $lx^ a > ( as Aristotle calls them), divided into two parts; as oxen, deer, sheep, goats, &c. And these arc of two kinds; lor some divide the hoof in two parts, but it is not cloven qiiite through; as the camel, Whose hoof is parted above, “but joined by a thick skin below, and therefore reckoned among the unclean beasts. Others both divided and cloven^ which are those allowed by this law to be clean creatures. And chetveth the cttd among the beasts, &c] As all those beasts do, wliichareiiot a(x<p6lovra (as Aristotle calls them, lib. x. cap. 50.) that is, have not a &bt of teeth both above and below: such are oxen, sheep, atad goats, which want upper teeth; and therefore bririg’thcir meat up again into their mouths, after it hath been some time in the stomach; that it may, by a new chdwing of it, be better prepared for digestion. So the author of Porta Coeli, “whb Explains this very exactly, when he saith, “For want of upper teeth they cannot chew their food perfectly at one time; nor can the stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time. And therefore such creatures are provided with a double stomach; an upper, into which the meat’goes down after the first chewing; and Another, into “which it is sent, after it hath been grinded a second time.” That shall ye eat.] The Hebrews truly observe, (particularly It. Levi Barzelonita,Praeccpt. clix.) that all kinds of animals, which had not every one of these marks (of parting the hoof, and being cloven-footed, and chewing the cud) were unlawful to be eaten.
Leviticus 11:4
Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof. This is added as an explication of (he foregoing rule, to shew, that if any of the forementioned marks were wanting, such creatures must not be eaten. As the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, &c] The latter part of this character is not to be understood, as if the camel did not divide the hoof at all; but not quite through, so as to be cleft, as well as divided. For, though its hoof be divided above, it coheres below, as It. Solomon observes. And so doth Aristotle, (lib. ii. cap. 1.) and Pliny, (lib. ii. cap. 45.) This being so very plainly expressed in this law, it is something strange that Hcliogabalus should order the flesh of camels and ostriches to be served up to his table, " Diccns, praeceptum Judaeis ut ederent:” saying, the Jews were commanded to eat them; as Lampridius reports his words, (cap. 28.) Salmasius, indeed, upon that place, saith, he found these two words, siruthwues and camelos, joined together,* to make one word in a MS. of the Palatine library, which reads strnthioca-‘melos exhibuitin ccenis. Which seems to some to mend the matter; but then they arc forced to interpret prmceptum by concession; as if he had said, lod did not forbid this meat to the Jews: which is altogether uncertain. It is better t® say, that though many of the pagans did read the law of Moses, yet they did it carelessly, without sufficient attention to it.
Leviticus 11:5
And the coney. Much might be said to justify our translation of the word saphan, by the English coney, if it could be proved that they chew the aid; which they do not, having upper teeth. Therefore, Bochart, by many arguments, proves this word, saphan, to signify a mountain mouse; which, as Solomon saith, (Prov. xxx. 2G.) make their holes in rocks: Which rabbits do not; but this creature doth, as he proves out of the Arabian MTriters; who call it aliarbuo, and say it chews the cud. (See Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. iii. cap. 33.) Because he cheweth the cud, &c] Or rather, though lie cheweth the cud, yet, wanting the other mark, they were to look upon it as unclean.
Leviticus 11:6
And the hare, because he chetveth (or though he cheweth) the cud, but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean nnto you. The same author shews in the same book, (cap. 37.) that the Hebrew word arnebeth is rightly translated a hare. For though no author, but Moses, saith it chews the cud, yet Aristotle saith something like it, lib. iii. cap. 22. where he observes, it hath a runnet in the stomach.* And Tho. Bartholinus,in hisAnatom. Hist. Cent. 2. Histor. lxx’xvi. tells us, that in his dissection of a hare, though he found but one stomach, which made him wonder, at first, that Moses should reckon it among the creatures that ruminate, yet he found/that what was wanting in the simple stomach was supplied by the largeness of the intestimim ccecum y which gut is of a great bigness, consisting of two parts. In one of which he found liquid aud white excrements (like to chyle), as if it were another stomach: the other part towards the ileon, being full of black excrements.
Leviticus 11:7
And the svnne, though he divide the hoof, and be Cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud: he is unclean to you. Though the swine hath the first part of the mark of a clean creature completely, being cloven-footed, as well as having the hoof divided, yet not chewing the cud, it is forbidden to be eaten. And this, no doubt, was the sole foundation of the Jews abstaining from this meat. Whose filthy feeding and wallowing in the mire, Maimonides fancies, was the only cause why it was prohibited, (More N©- Toch. par. iii. cap. 48.) To which others add, its feeding upon flesh, as Vossius observes, lib; iii. de Orig. et Progressu Idol. cap. 42. where he gives other reasons alsofor it. One of which, viz. that it was apt to breed the leprosy, to which they were very subject in those countries, is ingeniously treated of by Pctrus Cunaeus in his Itepubl. Hcbraeor. (lib. ii. cap. ult.) and more lately by another very learned person, J. Wagenseil, Carminis R. Lipmanni Confutatio, p. 55G. To which Clemens Alexandrinus adds several other reasons, (lib. vii. Strom.. p. 718.) and there arc many more inLactantius relating to mortality, (lib. iv. Divin. Jnstit. cap. 17.) But whatsoever grounds there might be of this prohibition, that alone could not be the reason why the whole nation of the Jews abhorred this more than any other unclean creature, which was equally forbidden with this. Insomuch that tbey would not, when they spoke of it, mention its proper name; but called it another (or a strange) thing..Which arose sure from some other cause; microsoft ® CHAP. XI.] UPON LEVITICUS. that, in process of time, made this the most abominable of all other creatures. And that was, I take it, because the gentiles used it in their sacrifices and mysteries of religion; and because nothing was accounted a more delicious food among many great nations: which (if a vehement abhorrence had not been infused into the Jews of this creature) might have invited them to their tables, and bred such familiarity with them, as might have concluded in idolatry. Pliny observes, (lib. viii. cap. 51.) that no. creature affords greater plenty of delicious dishes at their tables than this, " Neque alio ex animali numerosior materia ganeae,” &c. Insomuch that old Homer, relating how Eumams entertained Ulysses, (Odyss.xiv.) saith only, that he killed a great hog of five years old, and that only for five guests. They that would see more of this, may look into Petrus Castellanus, lib. ii. de Esu Carnium, cap. 1, 2, &c. where he shews also, out of Varro, (lib. ii. de Re Rustica, cap. 4.) that the gentiles knew of no ancienter sacrifices than this, after they began to offer animals upon their altars. For they thought that would be most acceptable to their gods which best pleased themselves: insomuch that a swine, which the later Greeks called vg, was anciently called $i>g, ab illo verbo quoddiciturZvuv, from that word which sigrijfies to sacrifice. For the first sacrifices were of this creature, as appears by the mysteries of Ceres, in which a sow was offered; and at their marriages the ancient kings and great men of Etruria offered the like sacrifice; and so did the Latins and Greeks in Italy. The Hierapolitans, indeed, looked upon swine as unclean, and would neither eat them, nor offer them to their gods; noT would they of Pessinnntium, in Galatia: V quod prorsus Mosaicum m% H which they leprnt, in all likelihood, from Moses, as Huetius thinks, (Demonstr. Evang. propos. iv. cap. 11. n. 1.) But in many other nations this food was highly valued: and Athenaeus, I observe, gives the very same reason of its name that Varro doth, (lib. ix. Dcipnos.) 01 St avv EipfjtrSai olovti Svv, tov tic Svaiav tirt- Oovvra. From whence it is, that Aristophanes calls them MvariKagXoiQovg, mystical swine, in his Acharnan. because, as the scholiast there explains it, §ia to Iv roig MvarTjplotg AjjjiTjTpog SvttrSai, they were offered in themysteries of Ceres. And Julian himself, in his oration upon the Mother of the Gods, (Orat. v.) confesses $>(kov tivai TrnrlanvTai Svfia ro7g xOovioig £to7e ovk cnrwtoTwg, it was deservedly believed io be a grateful sacrifice. to the terrestrial gods, (p. 332. Edit. Patav,)
Leviticus 11:8
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch. Some think the latter part of this precept signifies no more, but that they should not meddle •with their carcassto prepare it for meat, (as the word touch seems to be used, Gen. iii. 3.) though they did not eat it. But others take it more largely, that they should not so much as open them, to take out the fat, and apply it to any use. In this the Jews are so scrupulous, that they say they may not touch them (though alive) with one of their fingers, for fear of the leprosy. It being a proverbial saying among them, which we read in the treatise Kidduschin, that " ten measures of leprosydescending into the world, swine took to themselves nine of them, and the rest of theworld one.” If we may believe Herodotus, (lib. ii. cap.*47.) the Egyptians looked upon swine as so unclean, that if any one touched one of them by chance, as he passed by, he was bound to wash himself, with his garments, in the river. Certain it is that not only they, but the Arabians, and some other, neighbouring nations, did abstain from swine’s flesh, as Bochartus and others, h$ve observed, (see his Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. ii. cap. 57. p. 702. and Petr. Castellanus, lib. ii. de Esu Carnium, cap. 4.) which they learned, I doubt not, at first from the Jpws; and afterward found other reasons for it. This abhorrency of swine is propagated into far distant countries among the Mahometans; particularly into Mindanao, one of the Philippine islands; where, if any onp haye but touched one of these creatures, he is not permitted to come into any body’s house for many days after. So Pampier relates in a late Voyage round the World, (chap. 12. p.- 343.) where he says, “the sultan’s brother haying a pair pf shoes made him by one of their ship’s crew (which they seldom w r ear there), fell into a great passipa, when he was told the thread wherewith the shoes weTe §e-vved, \vas pointed ynth hog’s bristles; and Avoulfl npf wear them.”
Leviticus 11:9
These shall ye eat pf all that are fn the waters. Though some of the heathens abstained perpetually from all fish, and others only for some time, Iv rcug aytartlatg, ivhen they were under strict obligations of purity, (as Julian tells us in the forementioned oration v.) yet God left his people at greater liberty, forbidding to them only some kinds of fish; by abstinence from which they wprp sufficiently distinguished from those nations ^v^ich did eat all indifferently, and accounted fish the greatest jdelicacy. Whatsoever hath fins ttnd scales.) If both these marks <Jid not concur in a fish, they were not to pat it. JJut their doctors say, (as we learn from R. Levi Bar^elonita, ^Bn^pept. cl.) that if but one scale.was found on a fish, it was accounted lawful;. and they needed not to ob?prye whejher it had fins or no: for all that have scales, they say,lhave fins; though, on the contrary,. all ithat have fins have not scales. They observe also, secondly, that it was lawful tp eat young fish before their.scales appeared, if they Aye re of that kind which have scales.when they arc grown. And, thirdly,. all fishes that have scales when they are in the sea, but cast them when they are taken out, are lawful. In the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers.] By waters in tjiis place, as distinguished from seas and rivers, are meant lakes and ponds. And so Moses pxpresses all the places where fish is found. Ver.JO. And all that have not fins, nor. scales, &c. shall be an abomination to you.] There was. an ancient law among the.Romans, made by Numa, that no fish which wanted scales should bo used in those feasts which they made in honour of jthcir gods. So Plinyjiells us,lib.xxxii. Nat. Hist. cap. 2. where he quoted an ancient >yriter for it.
Leviticus 11:11
They shall be even an abomination unto you:) The. next words explain what he means by abomination; that they should not eat their flesh, nor touch their carr cassea….,
Leviticus 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor. scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination itnto you. He repeats it again, that they might take notice, that this alone was a sufficient mark of difference: and, therefore, he doth not give any instance of particular fishes that might be eaten or not eaten; as he did of beasts. He uj$cs also the word abomination concerning prohibited fishes (which he doth, not of such beasts, whom he only calls unclean), because there was greater danger.of their.transgressing in. this matter; fishes figmzea uy microsqn <& 3S4 [chap. XI. being a more usual food among the eastern people than flesh. Insomuch, that among the later Greeks, the word ttyov, which signifies all manner of victuals, came to be used peculiarly for fish. See Bochartus, in his Hicrozoic. par. i. lib. i. cap. G. where he observes, also, the greatest luxury was committed in this sort of food; which any one may see that reads Athenreus.
Leviticus 11:13
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten. Here are no notes given, as in the two foregoing sorts of creatures, to distinguish clean birds from unclean: and therefore the Hebrew doctors say, all birds are lawful to be eaten, but these twenty-four mentioned in this chapter, which they were to have in abhorrence. Yet they adventure to give four marks of a clean bird; the principal of which are, if it do not fasten its talons; t. e. be not rapacious; and have one claw longer than the rest. (See R. Levi Barzclonita, Praecept. clxi.) They shall be an abomination.] This is repeated to make them more careful in this matter. The eagle.] He names in the first place, the king of birds, as Pindar calls the eagle, otwvwv BatTiXija, whose flesh is Yery hard, and whose nature is very rapacious: and therefore, both upon a natural and moral account, some authors fancy it was forbidden to be eaten. (See Vossius, lib. Hi. de Orig. et Progr. Idol. cap. 77.) But I think Origen hath given abetter account of it, in the place I named above; that Moses by his admirable wisdom understood what creatures were looked upon as prophetical by the Egyptians and other nations; and these he prohibited to the Jews: among which he expressly names the eagle and the hawk, (lib. iv. contra Celsnm, p. 225.) For Diodorus Siculus saith, (lib. i.) that rov S’ qztqv 9r)j3a~oi rtfxuxri, the people of Thebes worship the eagle, looking upon it as a royal bird, and worthy of Jupiter. And Julian in his oration upon the Mother of the Gods (Orat. v.) saith, that in the time of their strictest purifications, they were permitted TTTtivotg yj>na%at (so Spanhemius truly reads in the late edition of Julian’s works), to eat birds, irXijv 6\tyiDv,ovg Upovg ilvai navrr) <rvfx(5l(57)Kz, except a few which had been commonly held sacred. Which is a plain acknowledgment of the sacredness of some birds among the gentiles. The ossifrage.] All authors in a manner agree, that the Hebrew word peres signifies a kind of eagle; but what kind is not so certain. Bochartus thinks it is rightly translated by Junius, as it is by us, the. ossifrage; for the Hebrew word paras, in Micah iii. 3. is used for breaking of bones. (See Hierozoic. par. ii. lib. ii. cap. 5.) The osprey.] This is also of the same species; and signifies that sort which the Greeks call halietus, the sea-eagle. But Bochartus in the same book, cap. G. thinks the Hebrew word oznija, rather signifies that which they call malanicetus, the black eagle. Which though it be the least, yet is the strongest of all other, and therefore called Valeria by the Romans: and’yvas so noted for many other qualities, besides its great strength, that it makes it probable Moses did not here omit it. Ver; 14^ And the vulture, and the kite after his kind,] No wonder interpreters differ in their translation of the two Hebrew words, daa and aja; the former of whicl* we translate a vulture, the latter a kite (which others translate quite contrary, taking daa, or raa, as it is called in Deuteronomy, (or a kite), because there is no way to find the signification of them, unless it be by the roots, from whence they maybe thought to be derived. Which makes Bochart think the first ought to be translated a kite, called daa, from its very swift flight. Most of the ancient and later interpreters also are of his mind. As for the second word in this verse, aja, some take it for a vulture: but Bochart, from several observations, judges it to be a kind of hawk or falcon.’ (See the same book, cap. 8.) After this word there follows in Deuteronomy xvi. 13. the name of a bird which is here omitted, called daja, which he takes for tho black vulture; as the reader may find in the next chapter, (cap. 9.) After his kind.] Though there bo some little difference in shape, yet these birds all belong to one species. (See ver. 22.)
Leviticus 11:15
Every raven after his kind. Nobody doubts that the Hebrew word oreb (which signifies blackness), is rightly translated a raven; of which the Arabian writers mention four kinds. And some think under this name is comprehended, not only crows, and daws, and choughs; but starlings andpies also. (See Bochartus, cap. 10. p. 202.) Ver. 1G. And the owl] The Hebrew word bath-jaana, it appears by many places in the prophets, signifies a bird which inhabits the wildernesses and desolate places. (See Isa. xiii. 21. xxxiv. 13. Jer. 1. 39, &c.) By which the ancient interpreters of Scripture almost unanimously understand the ostrich; though a very learned man of our own nation (Nic. Fuller, in his Miscellanies, lib. vi. cap. 7.) endeavours by a probable argument to support onr translation. But it hath been the constant persuasion of the Jews, that God did not permit them to eat the flesh of an ostrich, which is no where forbidden, if not in this word. And therefore Bochartus maintains against our Fuller, and labours to prove that bath-jaana signifies the female ostrich, par. ii. Hierozoic. lib. ii. cap. 14, where he shews the word bath (i. e. daughter) is prefixed to the name of many birds, without any respect to their age, and doth not signify their young ones; but only the females. And the night-hawk.] In the next chapter to that now named, the same Bochart proves, that the Hebrew word thacmus (which we here translate the night-hawk), signifies male ostrich. For there is no general name for this bird in the Hebrew language, to comprehend both sexes (as there is for an eagle and raven), and therefore Moses mentions both male and female distinctly, that none might think, by forbiddiug one of them only, he allowed* the other. And the cuckoo.] The LXX. St. Jerome, and some later interpreters, translate the Hebrew word sachaph by the Greek word Aa’poe, a sea-gull. Which the same great man, beforementioned, thinks most probable, (cap. 18.) t And the hawk after his kind.] There is the greatest consent in the translation of the Hebrew word netz, which all agree signifies a hawk; from its strength and swiftness in flight, which made it sacred to Apollo. For Eustathius observes upon Iliad, x. that oSvttct^c 6 “V a £> *<” ff HA«oe 6ZvKtvr)Toe, a hawk flies, as the sun moves, very swiftly. And every one knows there are very various kinds of these
Leviticus 11:18
And the swan. In this translation we follow St Jerome: but Jonathan takes it for a kind of owl, which he calls otia. Whereby he means, no doubt, that bird which Aristotle calls iroc: which he saith is like an owl, having tufts of feathers about its ears, from whence it hath the name of otus, (lib. viii. cap. 12.) And so the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Samaritan here translate the Hebrew >vord thinsemeth, which a great many modern interpreters follow;^ who take this for that which the Latins call noctaa, as the former for that owl which they call bubo. The pelican.] That the Hebrew word kaath signifies a pelican is not disputed. But that it also signifies the bird we call a heron, is not improbable; being joined with chos in Psalm cii. G. which is a bird that makes an unpleasant noise, especially that kind of them that cries like a bittern, and is called by later writers butorius. And the gier-eagle.] There are many various opinions about this bird, which the Hebrews call racham. But Bochart hath shewn, out of the Arabian writers, that it signifies a kind of eagle, or vulture: for sometimes they call it by one of these names, sometimes by the other. It being of a dubious kind, between an eagle and a vulture; and therefore happily by us translated a gier-eagle,- that is, a vulture-eagle, which Aristotle calls yvirakrog. See Ilierozoic. par. ii. lib. ii. cap. 25 — 27. where Bochart shews it is such a harmless and good-natured bird, that thence it had the name of racham, and in Arabic of rachama: and was made the hieroglyphic of mercy and tenderness among the Egyptians, if Horus Apollo may be believed.
Leviticus 11:19
And the stork. There are vastly different interpretations of the word chasida; which imports kindness no less than the foregoing racliam. But there is no reason to depart from the opinion of the later Hebrews, who take it, as we do, to signify a stork. The piety (as the Latins call it) of which bird is celebrated by all authors, and is the, very import of the Hebrew word chasida. But it feeds upon serpents, and therefore, as Bochart imagines, was prohibited to be eaten by the Jews: though upon this account-it was had in honour by the people of Thessaly, and, by the Egyptians, as he observed in the forementioned book, cap. 29. The heron after his kind.] There are at least ten difvol. r. ferent interpretations of the Hebrew word anapha; among which ours is one. But it being derived from a word which signifies anger, Bochartus rather takes it for a mountain-falcon, which is a fierce bird, and very prone to anger. And the lapwing.] The Hebrew doctors take dukiphah for a mountain-cock, which had a double crest, and thence hath its name, according to R. Solomon. Or rather it may be so called from the place where it resorts; for dik in Arabic is a cock, and kapha a rock, from whence Bochart probably conjectures this bird had its name, because it lives in mountainous places. And he thinks the LXX. and the Vulgar have rightly translated it mowa, and upn~ pam: which is the sense also of four Arabian interpreters. It is a portentous kind of bird, which hath a crest from its bill ^to* the, hindermost part of its head; and one of the principal birds used in the ancient superstitions of the magicians and augurs, as he observes cap. 31 J And the bat.] As Moses begins the catalogue of birds with the noblest, which is the eagle, so he ends it with the vilest, which is a bat; being of a dubious kind, as Aristotle observes, between a bird and a mouse, lib. iv. cap. 13. where he saith it doth tTrafi^ortgi^uv rolg 7rrrjvoTc Kal ira^otg, &c. See the famous Bochartus, who shews that its name in Hebrew, which is attaleph, imports it to be a bird of darkness. Whence that phrase in the prophet Isaiah, ii. 20. " In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver and gold to the bats, and the moles;” i. e. they shall no more appear to delude men with their glittering brightness, but be utterly destroyed.
Leviticus 11:20
All fowls that creep. The Hebrew word oph is not well translated fowls; but signifies rather &\ flying things going upon all four. All flying things that go upon four feet are here forbidden; such as all kinds of flies, and wasps, and bees, as Jonathan here explains it. A fly indeed is observed to be i^dirovg: butthoug;h it have six feet, yet* it’ goes only upon four, as not only Lucian, but Aristotle notes; the two fore-feet serves for other uses. (See Bochart in his Hierozoic. par. ii. lib. iv. cap. 9.), Shall be an abomination to you.] It is observed by some; that the birds here forbidden are either rapacious, and live on flesh, (as eagles and hawks, &c.) or are night-birds, (as owls, &c.) or haunt lakes and marshes, (as the bittern, &c.) or are heavy, and not easily raised from the earth, as the ostrich; or live in graves or in dung, as the upupa, and some of those flying things mentioned in this verse: and upon these accounts are forbidden by Moses; who allows all those that live upon a cleaner food, as those that follow do./
Leviticus 11:21
Yet these may ye eat, of every flying, creeping t thing, &c. In this verse he excepts such flying insects, as, besides their four feet wherewith they go, have two legs or thighs, which enable them to leap upon the earth, as well as to go. Such are all the locusts mentioned in the next verse; unto which Aristotle ascribes six feet, whereas, Moses mentions but four. In which they do not disagree; for Aristotle plainly saith, they have six feet, cyvjolg «Ar«co#£ fiopipi$, if toe take into the number the parts with which they, leap, (lib. iv. cap. 6.) ^yhich two hinder leaping legs Moses distinguishes from the other four wherewith they go.
Leviticus 11:22
Even these of them ye may eat. There are ninekinds of locusts mentioned in tho holy books; four of which are here permitted to be eaten* Microsoft ® [CHAI*. XT. The locust after his kind.] The Hebrew \rord drbeh id sometimes a common name for all locusts; but here signifies a peculiar sort, of that kind beforerrientioned, Which leaped as well as went. Tlie bald locust after his kind.] Tho Hebrew word is sotam: so called, as Abcn Ezra thinks, because it climbs up roots, in which’ it delights. Tlie beetle after his kind.] This sort of locusts balled chargol, seems to have its name from the vast company Wherein they fly together. But It is not fitly translated & beetle; for none ever ate beetles; nor are they four-footcd> with legs to leap withal. Therefore chargol is another Sort of locusts, unknown to ns in these countries; and so is that which follows; for a grasshopper is not a sort of meat: but there were locusts of that shape, which were* large and fleshy in the eastern countries, and very good food. The grasshopper after his kind.] The Hebrew word chagab signifies (as I said) a sort of locusts, the original of whose name Aben Ezra intimates may be found in th& Arabic tongue. In which ghahageba signifies to cover as with a veil: and in such troops these locusts fly, that sometimes they seem to darken the sun itself. But by what marks these were distinguished from one another, the Hebrews differ so much, that it plainly shews they are wholly ignorant in this matter. The most that can be made of what they say, is, (as a man very learned in these things hath observed, Job. Ludolphus, in his dissertation de.Locustis, par. i. cap. 23.) that chargol hath both a bunch on its back and a tail also: arbeh hath neither: solam only a bunch, and not a tail; and chagab a tail, buf no bunch. Which whether it betrue or false it doth not much concern us to know. But it is evident, that before our Saviour’s time they knew very well and certainly what kind of locusts is here meant; and accordingly perfectly -understood what they might cat, and what not. For Otherwise John the Baptist would have been hard put to it, who had no other diet but this and honey. And, indeed, in desert places there was little other food but this; by which whole armies of men have been relieved, when they were in danger to perish in Lybia. For, that loensts were a common food in the eastern and southern countries is so known, that I need not produce any authors for it. Nay, among the Greeks also, as Bochartus hath shewn in his Hicrozoic. par. ii. lib. iv. cap. 7. and Vossius, lib. iv. dc Orig. ct Progr. Idol. cap. 78. But nobody hath given such satisfaction in this matter as the forenamed Ludolphus, who hath shewn at large how many nations live upon them, in his commentary upon his Ethiopic History: and more lately in his most excellent Dissertation concerning Locusts. Wherein he relates what clouds of them came into Germany not long ago (in the month of August, in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-three); of which he seeing hogs and hens and other creatures feeding greedily, he and his family adventured to eat freely of them also, and found the taste of them like that of a crab. And a Jew of Jerusalem, who was then in their country, assured him, that the locusts in Judca were much of the same shape with these in Germany, which ho demonstrated to him by a draught he had made of them. After his kind.] Here it may be fit to note, in the con-,| Digitized by i elusion of all, that this phras^ after his kind (Which id so often repeated in this discourse of fowls taxA flyinrf things), doth not necessarily signify that there arc different kinds of every bird or flying thing to which it is applied; but only imports every one of that kind. For he doth not Speak in the plutal number, according td their kinds, but in the singular, after his kind; which only denotes that the whole species is prohibited. And what ho saith of some! fowls, is in reason to be applied to all; though, to avoid repetition, he doth not add these words (after his kind] to every one of them.
Leviticus 11:23
But all other flying deeping things which hav4 four feet, shall be an abomination to you. Whether they Were locusts, orany other kind of creature, who came un-» der this character, they were to avoid them carefully.
Leviticus 11:24
And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean. If they didf either eat of them, ot so much as touch the carcass of them, they might riot toe admitted to come into the tabernacle, nor eat of any holy thing, nor converse with their neighbours. Until the even.] He doth not say they were to wash themselves, or their clothes (as in the following verse),- which would incline one ta think, that their mere scpara* tion for all the day, from dofnmnning with God and witfr one another, Was their cleansing, without any other purification. But there are so many commands for washing themselves, and their clothes, in other defilements no* greater than this, that it hath persxiaded some ta think such cleansing was necessary in this case also. (See xv. 5— 8v 10. and several other verses in that chapter.)
Leviticus 11:25
And ivhosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them. Though it were only to carry them out of the camp or city, or remove them out of the way, that they might not infect the’ air. Shall ivash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.) His body also, in all likelihood, was to be washed, as was required in other purifications. No time is appointed for this, which, perhaps, a man might think fit to do presently; but, notwithstanding, he was to remain unclean till the setting of the sun.
Leviticus 11:26
The carcass of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven-footed, &c. He takes Occasion from hence to inform them, that it was as unlawful to touch the carcasses of beasts before prohibited to be eaten, (ver.:% &c.) as of the fowl and flying things now mentioned. ~ But while they were alive it was not unlawful to touch them; for they used camels, and horses, and asses, for their necessary service; and therefore it is so expressed in other things, (ver. 31.) when they are dead.
Leviticus 11:27
Andxvhatsoever goetk upon his paws, Sec. Hath feet with fingers like unto a hand; for so it is in the Hebrew, Whatsoever goetk upon his hands, such as the ape, the lion, the bear, dogs and cats, &c. whose fore-feet rosemble hands: these might neither be eaten, nor their carcasses touched, without incurring unclcanness till sunset.
Leviticus 11:28
And he that beareth the carcass of them, shall wash his clothes, &c. See ver. 25.
Leviticus 11:29
These also shall be unclean unto you. So that they might not so much as touch them (as it is explained* ver. 31.) when they arc dead, much less cat them; Microsoft ® chap, xi.] UPON LEVITICUS. Among the creeping things tJiat creep upon the earth.] Among things that have such short feet, that some of their bellies seem to touch the ground. Hie weasel.] Though most interpreters follow this trans* lation of the Hebrew word choled; yet Bochartus hath alleged a great many probable reasons that it signifies a mole; and one is, because it is joined here with the mouse. See Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. iii. cap. 35. where he treats of this very largely. The mouse.] All acknowledge the Hebrew word achbar signifies a mouse, and more especially a field-mouse, which doth great mischief there; and thence hath its name, a$ the same Bochartus shews in the foregoing chapter of th^t book. But all sorts of jnice are here to be understood, as Jonathan observes, who thus paraphrases this word, the frtack mouse, the red, and th$ white; for they are of so jnany colours. The tortoise after his kind,] The same author has taken, a great deal of pains to prove that tzab doth not signify.#-, tortoise; but, as the LXX, and St. Jerome take it, a landcrocodile, which is a large sort of lizard, a cubjt long, with which Arabia abounds; out of which language ho jendoavours nt large to prove the truth of this interpretation, (lib. iv. eap.l.)
Leviticus 11:30
And the ferret J. Out of the same language, and the Syriac and Samaritan paraphrase, the same judicious writer proves, that anaka signifies another sort of lizard, which the Latins called stellio, and in those countries hath a shrill cry. (See there, cap. 2.) And the chameleon.] Most of the ancient interpreters take coach for another sort of lizard, which is the strongest (as this name imports) of all other; and in these countries was famous for its encounters with serpents and Jandcrocodiles; as the forenamed Bpqhartus shews out of the Arabian writers, (lb, cap. 3.) And the lizard.] All the ancient interpreters agre$, that the Hebrew word letaa signifies a sort of lizard, but of what kind it \s hard to determine. The aforesaid Bochart out of the Arabian writers hath shewTi, it is like to that which is of a reddish colour, and lies close to the earth, infecting the meat which it touches with its venom, (lb. cap. 4.) The snail] The same admirable person, with great probability, still thinks Moses speaks of a sort o£Uzar<]L called here chomet, because it lies in the sand, which, in the Talmudic language, is called chometon, (lb. cap. 5.) And the mole.] It is apparent that the word thinsemeth, which we here translate a mole, is of a very dojibtfuji signification: for in the eighteenth.verse of this chapter it signifies a sort of fowl; as here, in all probability, another sort pf Utard, And if we may guess what sort, by the original of the word, it probably signifies the chameleon, which gapes to draw in air. (See Bochart. Hjeroz. par. j. lib. iv. cap. G.) But, after all that can be said, it must be acknowledged, the significations of ^11 these vyorijs are lost among the Jews; as Aben Ezra confesses upon this verse: " Neither these eight sorts of creeping things, nor the birds beforementioned, are kno>yn to us, but by tradition." Which is as much as to say, they are not known at all; for there is no tradition about them, as the Talmudists acknowledge; who send those who are doubtful what birds are lawful, and what not, to be informed by those that are masters of the art of fowling, “Which might help to convince the Jews, were they not resolved to shut their eyes, that difference of meats is now ceased, because they know not what is forbidden, and what not, in many ca^esl And, consequently, the Messiah is come, to whom the gathering of the people was to be, (according to their father Jacob’s prophecy, Gen. xlix. 10.) so that they should be no longer separated, but all nations collected into one body, and converse freely together, without any danger of being” defiled. For idolatry being abolished by him, there was no reason remaining for keeping wp the discrimination between Jews and gentiles by a different diet. This some of the ancient Jews saw very well, who said, that in the days of the Messiah it should not be im* lawful to eat swine’;? flesh, no more thau it was >vHile they were subduing the Janxl of Canaan. This (ration is acknowledged by Abarbinel himself in his; Ro$ch Amanah, where he disputes for the eternity pf their Jaw, and endeavours to elude this tradition of the ancient doctors by alle r gorical interpretations, (See J. Carpzovius in Schickjtard. Mischpafhammelech, cap. 5. Theorem, xviii.)
Leviticus 11:31
These are unclean to you among all that creep: tvhosoever toucheth them yohen they be dead, shall be unclean. The Jews understand this with respect to the touching the dead carcasses of these creatures, and mako the sense pf it to be, Tliese eight alone are unclean to you; qll other reptiles, as serpents, and scorpions, tyc. you may touch and not be polluted. Thus R. Levi Bar;- zelonita, Pnecept. clii. For nothing was unclean by Moses’s law, whilst it was alive, but only a~ leper, and a woman in her separation. Worms, dogs, swine, &c. were unclean to be touched, only when they are dead. Until the evening.] See ver. 4. This was a plain document, as Pellicanus there observes, that there was no impurity in the things theniselves; but it was merely a prudential constitution, to make such defilements end with the day wherein they were contracted, Ver- 32. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it sliall be unclean.] That is, it might not be used till it was cleansed. Whence the £ame R. Levi saith, the Jews are wont to call these the fathers of pollutions; because by their contact they defiled other things, (vessels and raiment, &c.) as well as men, (Prajcept. clii.) where he acknowledges that the reason why these creatures made things unclean, more than others, is not manifest. But he giv^sfhis pious admonition thereupon:’" If by our jeason we be able to discern the usefulness of some precept?, let us be very thankful for it: but if wc cannot find how they are any way profitable to us, let us believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, saw the benefit we should receive by it, and therefore commanded it." Whatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it mast be put into water, &c. so shall it be cleansed.] The heathens purified all things, in a manner, by washing them in water; but Moses requires only thq§e things, which were of com-.mon use, to be so purified, in case of any defilement. And therefore Maimonides saith, " Such laws as these were made to lessen their labour and service; and if there be any thing in them that seems, too troublesome and tedious, it arises from our ignorance of the rites and customs of those times, which make such precepts necessary," (par. iii. More Nov. cap, 47.) 3D2 uigmzea oy Microsoft ® 3S3 [chap. xr.
Leviticus 11:33
And every earthen vessel, whereinto any other of themfalleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean. It defiled both the vessel and that which was contained in it. And ye shall break it.] This is prescribed vi.28. because such vessels were of no great value.
Leviticus 11:34
Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such %vater cometh shall be unclean. The Jews’have many observations about these sorts of pollutions: but the simple meaning is, that any meat, which might otherwise be lawfully eaten, was made unclean, if any water poured out of such a vessel as is beforcnamed had come upon it. For the water being defiled, it made the meat on which it came to be unclean also. This appears to be the sense by what follows. And all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall beunclean.] It might not be drunk out of such a vessel, though otherwise it was not prohibited; but though liquid things were by such means made unclean, yet not dry things (such as bread), because they did not so soon receive any effluviums from a dead carcass as liquid things did. This they gather from ver. 37, 38.
Leviticus 11:35
And every thing whereupon any part of their carcass falleth shall be unclean. Though the whole carcass did not fall upon the things here named, yet, if any part of it did, they were not fit to be used any more, but were to be broken in pieces. (See ver. 33.) The design of all which laws is very visible, that by making the Israelites very cautious how they touched these things, or any other on which they fell, they might much more abhor to eat any unclean creature; and thereby be kept a separate people from all other nations, from whose familiar conversation they were by this means restrained, and consequently in less danger to learn their idolatrous customs.’ Whether, it be oven, or ranges for pots, &c.] Some translate tho words simply pots: and Conr..Pellicanus hath pertinently observed, that those places where meat and drink were commonly prepared (such as oven, and pots, and wine vessels, and cellars), it became them to preserve very clean and pure: which is the reason that Moses requires them to be broken down, if any part of the carcass of unclean creatures fell upon them. For they are unclean.] Rendered hereby unfit for use. And shall be unclean unto you.] And therefore shall not be used by you as heretofore.
Leviticus 11:36
Nevertheless a fountain or pit (or cistern, as some translate it), wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean. This exception seems to have been a merciful provision for their speedy cleansing from such pollutions as they frequently contracted; by allowing them to make use of any collection of waters (notwithstanding any such car-,cass had fallen into them) in their own private grounds, as well as in the public baths; such as Bethesda seems to have been, which had five porches; that they who laboured under the same sort of pollution, might betake themselves “to the same porch, and go down into the water together. If this had not been permitted, it might have been impossible (considering the few rivers they had in that country) to have cleansed themselves after their defilements. But that which toucheth their carcass shall beunclean.] The man who drew out these carcasses out of such waters was to be unclean till the even; i, e. separated, as I said before, from the tabernacle and from common conversation. Or the meaning may be, that the instrument, whatsoever it was, which he used to pull the carcass out of tho fountain or cistern, should be unclean, and not used any more.
Leviticus 11:37
Jf any part of their carcass fall upon any seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. If a mouse, for instance, was found dead among the wheat that was to b6 sown, it might notwithstanding be used forseed: but other wheat, which was not intended for seed, was made unclean, and might not be used till it was washed. The reason of this difference is plain, because the seed that was to be sown went through many alterations before it could be-^ come food, which took away all the pollution.
Leviticus 11:38
But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you. Wet seed might be supposed to have received some tincture from the carcass, which drydid not: and not being so fit to be sown till it was dry, was in that time to be cleansed.
Leviticus 11:39
And if any beast of which ye may eat die. Either of itself, or tornby wild beasts, or be suffocated, so that the blood remains in the veins. He that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even.] Such meat became unlawful, not only to be eaten, but to be touched.
Leviticus 11:40
He that eatcth of the carcass of it shall zvash his clothes, and be Unclean tiniil the even: he also thai beareth the carcass, &c. See ver. 24, 25. He speaks of such as ate of this meat ignorantly: for if they did it knowingly* it was a presumption to which cutting off is threatened, (Numb. xv. 30.) >
Leviticus 11:41
And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Except those beforementioned, ver. 21, &c. Shall be an abomination: it shall not be eaten.] Such as worms and serpents: which for this very reason are counted vile and filthy, because they crawl upon the earth.
Leviticus 11:42
IVliatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, and ivhatsoever hath more feet, &c. This verse seems to be an explication of the foregoing. For some creeping things have such short feet, that they are not to be discerned by our naked eyes, but they appeat as if they went upon their bellies. Others have feet apparently; and some Only four, (as moles, &c.) others have many more than four, as caterpillars and hog-lice, which we call millepedes, and those called centipedes in the Philippine islands, (mentioned in Dampier’s late Voyage round the World, p. 320.) not because they have really a thousand or a hundred feet, but because they have a great many. And the scolopendra, which the Arabians caWnedall, is another of this sort, which, they say, hath precisely fourtyfour feet, viz. twenty-two on each side, as Bochart notes, lib. iv. cap. 6. p. 1. And so the English call the’ecntipedes, beforementioned, forty legs, which are on each side of the belly. Among all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.] Here Nachmanides is something curiously critical, and bids us observe, that Moses speaking (both here and in the foregoing verse) not merely ofcrecjiing things, but of such as creep upon the earth; doth not intend such little worms as are in pease, or figs, or dates, or other fruit, which were not included in this precept, but might be eaten.
Leviticus 11:43
And ye shall not make yourselves abominable by
Leviticus 11:44
For I am the Lord your God. See Exod/iii. Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves.’] By this separate sort of diet, and other forementioned observances.: • And ye shall be holy; for lam holy.] The word holy signifies sometimes that which is most excellent and highly exalted above all other things. In which sense God here puts them in mind, that he being the most eminent in all perfections, incomparably above all the gods of the nations, both in his nature and in his works, (particularly in their redemption out of Egypt, ver. 45.) it was but reasonable that they should be distinguished from all other nations in their manner of living; and particularly by ab- -staining from all the defilements beforementioned. For iie having declared them a holy people, (Exod. xix. 6.) it was but just that they should live after another fashion than the rest of the world; and look upon those things as’unclean to them, which were not so to other people. (See Exod. xxii. nit.)’ • Neither shall ye defile yourselves tvitli any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Here being a different word used in the last clause from that in the foregoing (both which signify creeping things), Maiinonidcs here distinguishes between them: and saith, that the first word scheretz signifies such creeping things as are produced by male and female; and romesch (which is the other word) such as arise out of putrefaction. Which is now discovered to be an error; there being no such animals as are produced merely by the power of the sun, out of putrefied matter; but all out of some seed or other which comes from male and female. This, therefore, is only a repetition of what was delivered before, and now confirmed by an* unanswerable reason. •’
Leviticus 11:45
For I am the Lord your God, that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt. This was a benefit so fresh in their minds, that he speaks of it as if it were now a doing: and being the first and greatest benefit (the very foundation of the rest), there could not be a higher aggravation of guilt, than to be insensible of this obligation, (Exod. xxxii. 8.) To be your God.] He having redeemed them out of slavery, made them thereby his own people; over whom he had a peculiar dominion, in the right of this redemption; (See Exod. xx. 2.) Ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.] They being his peculiar people; he separated them from all other nations by peculiar laws; which made them different from all other people, as he himself was from all other beings.
Leviticus 11:46
This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, &c. That is, this is the rule you arc to observe in eating of beasts, &nd fowl, and fish, and things that creep on the earth. Of wliich four sorts of living creatures, Moses hath treated in this chapter, though not in that very order in which they are set down in this verse; but first of beasts/ (ver. 2, 3, &c.) then of fishes, (ver. 9, &c.) then of birds, (ver. 13, &c.) and lastly of creeping’ things, (ver.*20, &c.) Some of all which kinds he forbade them to eat, for such reasons as I have already mentioned: unto which this may be added, that by not allowing them an entire liberty to eat every thing, but rather laying many restraints upon them’, he intended to prevent that gluttony and luxury which is the ruin of a’ state; unto which nothing administers more than too great variety of meats, the desire of which/is insatiable.
Leviticus 11:47
To make a difference. To direct you how to make a difference.’ Between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten.] There was no uncleanness in any of these things, but what was made by this prohibition of them. But there being great reason to prohibit them, it was very necessary that both priests and people should observe, and be well skilled in the marks whereby what was lawful to be eaten, might be known from what was unlawful. Upon which account this is so oft repeated, and the same here expressed twice in different words.